The descriptions most widely circulated are pretty bad for what they are.
They work perfectly.
But they work related to the ego functions in use. So if you consider what you would prefer or aspire to instead of how you are, or consider based on memory instead of the functions you are using at the time, you will end up seeing matters in the wrong light.

Some are not very clear to me
Some stand out but Iím an N type. Something will jump out at me in a prominent way and every sensory type will find a contribution to what Iím feeling

-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx

I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx

I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

Quite a lot of interesting work has been done of the Reinin dichotomies, but some remain mysterious.

Victor Gulenko, for example, has done a lot of work on the semantics of Extroversion/Introversion, Rational/Irrational, Static/Dynamic, Sensing/Intuitive, Logical/Ethical, Process/Result, Central/Peripheral, Positivist/Negativist. He's done some work on Aristocratic/Democratic, Asking/Declaring and Ascending/Descending, but they can still be pretty confusing and mysterious and I wouldn't recommend pinning too much on your identification with them. Certainly the others can be confusing sometimes, such as Process/Result, but usually a large portion of them are clear. You can read about it here as long as you have access to a free online translator: https://socioniks.net/basicknowledge/

Another interesting source on the Lesser Signs of Reinin (Constructivist/Emotivist, Tactical/Strategic, Farsighted/Carefree, Obstinate/Yielding) is Victor Talanov, and his Model T. He has attempted to analyze them with empirical, statistical methods, though I don't have a deep understanding of the methodology just yet. You can read about it here: http://translate.google.com/translat...i_i_model.html

Talanov's research and approach are fascinating and unique to my knowledge, but I'm not so sure of his typing methods and thus I do consider his conclusions about these dichotomies to be quite suspect. However, it is still good food for thought as long as you take it with a grain of salt. A total calculus of Reinin dichotomies is a rather suspect methodology for typing to begin with, since we don't really know the relative influence of each one inasmuch as they relate to typical behavior (some dichotomies might just have much more influence on behavior than others), conscious awareness (mostly conscious or mostly subtle and unconscious), and scale of impact (more personal level effects vs. more group level effects, etc.).